suburbs_market_days_on_market_benchmarkMedian days on market across the suburb's greater region (GCCSA) — compare with /market/days-on-market.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suburb_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "available": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "`false` on no-data responses. Omitted on success — branch on `data !== null` if you want a single discriminator.",
- "title": "Available"
- },
- "data": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "Regional (GCCSA) median days-on-market benchmark.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "days_on_market": 34,
- "gccsa": "Rest of NSW",
- "n_suburbs": 1846
- },
- "properties": {
- "area_level": {
- "description": "Always 'suburb' for these endpoints.",
- "title": "Area Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "area_name": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) name.",
- "title": "Area Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "days_on_market": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Median days on market across the region's suburbs.",
- "title": "Days On Market"
- },
- "gccsa": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Greater capital city statistical area, e.g. 'Rest of NSW'.",
- "title": "Gccsa"
- },
- "n_suburbs": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Suburbs behind the benchmark median.",
- "title": "N Suburbs"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level"
- ],
- "title": "DomBenchmark",
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The endpoint's payload, or `null` when Microburbs has no value."
- },
- "message": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Human-readable explanation. Omitted on success.",
- "title": "Message"
- },
- "reason": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Machine-readable slug naming the no-data condition (e.g. `no_avm_for_GANSW704074813`). Stable per endpoint. Omitted on success.",
- "title": "Reason"
- }
- },
- "title": "ApiResponse[DomBenchmark]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_DomBenchmark_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope (GCCSA) but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details. It provides minimal extra value beyond annotations, with no contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core function and includes a comparative note. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the core functionality. However, it does not explicitly state the output format (e.g., a single number, a series) or provide examples. While not a critical gap, it could be more explicit about what the agent should expect as a return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'suburb_name', and the description does not elaborate on its format or constraints. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, so the meaning is inferred. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the gap is minor because the param is obvious.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the median days on market for the suburb's greater region (GCCSA), which distinguishes it from the suburb-level metric. It names the specific verb ('Median days on market') and resource ('suburb's greater region'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like suburbs_market_days_on_market.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description hints at an alternative by saying 'compare with /market/days-on-market', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the suburb-specific one. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, lacking conditions or exclusions. It gives a directional hint but not a clear decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.